Anandtech Phenom review is in

[BigsmellyFart]

AMD does have an advantage here. Their best socket was either Socket A or 939. AM2 didn't last that long. AMD does make people upgrade mobos a lot.

However, the vast, vast, overwhelming number of computers made in this world will never see a new processor but will instead reach the dumpster first.

My point in fact is that my system was a nforce3 platform. If memory serves me correctly it was on of the chipsets AMD debuted the Athlon 64 on. Right now I run a E6 stepping undervolted and above any frequency(2.6Ghz) that was sold for a 939 chipset. I have one case/hsf fan in my system. I have gotten this cpu to run up to 2.75Ghz(275 ltd max in my bios) but it is to hot for the silent cooling I perfer.

I am getting performance that is close to what is currently available what a brand new AMD platform. Maybe its not 3+ Ghz but it does perform beyond the scope of what is compatible with a 939 socket. Mind you with the original chipset 939s debuted on.

To say that AMD makes consumers upgrade mobos alot is not valid. AMD released the X1950 pro and 2600 both in agp for consumers who want to keep older platforms current with newer ones.

AM2 has not had a short life span. Considering the priced of a matched set of 2GB ddr3 dimms, I would speculate that many AM2 systems will outlast(and possibly out perform) a similiar 965 ,915, 875, 865 or older Pentium system.

I agree that the majority of systems in the world will end up in the dumpster before seeing a processor upgrade. I would go far as to say it is partly because Intel is constantly changing their sockets and chipsets. It is my opinion that the only reason Intel has stuck with the 775 socket for so long is to try and win people back from AMD. If AMD had not succeeded so well with the X2's I would bet Intel would have changed sockets long by now.

 

[NMDante]

I would agree but AMD only promised drop in compatibility not same performance. They stated that high versions would see bottlenecks on the old AM2. Don't forget the 4 way GPU on the 790 could mean more gaming performance than anything you could get on Intel. 4 3870's would beat any SLI performance wise and not a CPU on the market could make up that difference.

I would like to see some real world gaming numbers with quad Crossfire before claiming that it will be worth both the price, power consumption, and heat.
If a quad GPU gives only a 10% increase, would that be worth the extra cost, power, and heat? I don't think it would, imo.
If I remember, they have been touting the 3 GPU setup for sometime, even with the 3GHz Phenom demo machine, but no one has been able to really test it out. They showed it running a game (I'm guessing CoJ), but no one has ever really got their hands on it to see what kinds of frames per second, or even power usage it uses. If it does use low power, like the Crossfire does compared to SLI (HD3850 vs. 8800GT), then a quad might not be too bad a setup, but again, it all comes down to what kind of performance gains it gets.

 

[OOOwatah]

How do you fund R&D by selling chips at a 'bargain bin price'? I think you can bet that AMD didn't make those chips with a 'bargain bin' R&D team; I'm sure they need to sell at a decent price to cover their costs, let alone pay for the next generation.

With rubber bands and paper clips.

Seriously though, when I used the term bargain bin I didn't mean it as a slight, I used it as a comparison. And to be honest, the fact that their processors are so damn cheap is what keeps them in the game.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

I wonder if it was worth it for AMD to make that compatability, or perhaps they would have been better off with a less complicated design. Sometimes the simpler solution (double cheeseburger) is better than the complicated solution (native quad @65nm)

 

[OOOwatah]

I wonder if it was worth it for AMD to make that compatability, or perhaps they would have been better off with a less complicated design. Sometimes the simpler solution (double cheeseburger) is better than the complicated solution (native quad @65nm)

My question is this:

What is the viability of a double cheeseburger made with native quads?

And if it is viable, should Intel be a little worried?

 

[jbj190]

My question is this:

What is the viability of a double cheeseburger made with native quads?

And if it is viable, should Intel be a little worried?

Won't happen for a while. Unless AMD changes the Phenom, they won't be able to fit it into the AM2+ package. Even if it did, the heat problems would make Pentium 4 look cool.

 

[WazzaUK]

Too little too late lol.... Bet AMD staff wish theyd of done some work now.... Instead of champagne lunches and roadtrips. They behind a generation in technology now(maybe they miscalculated how much of a research/manufacturing lead - Intel had..). Slapping 4 K8 cores together with electrical tape isnt the solution.... I suppose at least AMD got a quad core cpu out there, but its hardly phenomenal... Maybe AMD will regret naming the CPU "phenom" soon lol....

I aint no fanboy etc - i got AMD pc's too....

 

[Harrisson]

I would like to see some real world gaming numbers with quad Crossfire before claiming that it will be worth both the price, power consumption, and heat.
If a quad GPU gives only a 10% increase, would that be worth the extra cost, power, and heat? I don't think it would, imo.
If I remember, they have been touting the 3 GPU setup for sometime, even with the 3GHz Phenom demo machine, but no one has been able to really test it out. They showed it running a game (I'm guessing CoJ), but no one has ever really got their hands on it to see what kinds of frames per second, or even power usage it uses. If it does use low power, like the Crossfire does compared to SLI (HD3850 vs. 8800GT), then a quad might not be too bad a setup, but again, it all comes down to what kind of performance gains it gets.

Quad GPU gives ~320% performance compared to single card, provided drivers are good. No idea about quad power numbers, but crossfire is more efficient than SLI.

 

[caamsa]

AMD does have an advantage here. Their best socket was either Socket A or 939. AM2 didn't last that long. AMD does make people upgrade mobos a lot.

However, the vast, vast, overwhelming number of computers made in this world will never see a new processor but will instead reach the dumpster first.

I hope that people will be more responsible and either donate their old computer to a worthy cause or recycle it. Please don't throw it in the trash.

I know that TC always recycles............he loves a green planet.

 

[NMDante]

Quad GPU gives ~320% performance compared to single card, provided drivers are good. No idea about quad power numbers, but crossfire is more efficient than SLI.

Is that on paper or an actual benchmark test, cause I haven't seen one benchmark of a quad GPU setup.

I've heard and seen them, but not one single data point showing how much better it is compared to single or other multi-GPU configurations.
If you have links, I would really like to see some numbers on how good it is or isn't. I remember seeing the nVidia Quad SLI with 7900GTs or something, but that's old news, now.

 

[Thom457]

One of the things I think gets lost in discussions about AMD and Intel products is that AMD has been more or less consistent in its approach to bringing forth better products and value over the long haul. Intel has not. The Netburst design was a dead a couple years before they introduced the Core Duo 2 stuff. If you look at what speed AMD introduced the Opteron at in the Spring of 2003 and then the Athlon 64 in the Fall of the same year and put the current products on the same chart, they took a long time to get from a 1.8 Ghz Opteron single core to the 3.2 Ghz Opteron dual core version today. They don’t have the resources to make the kinds of mistakes Intel has done in the past. Probably never will.

If AMD can produce a 65 NM Black Edition of the 6000 with the same head room that the 5000 BE has, that will not be a bad product and will meet the needs of 99% of the market for what would probably be $100.00 if such a product comes out in Q1/Q2 of 2008. If a K10 Dual core of same comes out for a little more and can reach the 3.0 Ghz range same deal. The battle is fought in the middle of the market where the 5000/6000 range lives. The lights stay on based on the numbers sold there not the number of QX9650s that can be over clocked to 4.0 Ghz. Same for AMD.

While Intel is profitable it has come at a high price for 30,000 former employees. 30,000 times say a range of $75,000 - $100,000 annual expense per employee says a lot about where the profit is being made and not. Given Intel’s size, sales and capacity their profits should be significantly larger. Said another way, what you pay for from Intel has a lot of fixed cost in it and it is hard to see how they can improve upon what they are doing without cutting into some other fixed cost items or increasing market share. Generally speaking Intel does not want to be selling its bread and butter CPU, chip sets etc at the price it is having to. Intel has the performance crown today and probably will keep it for some time but every Intel based system I see on the retail shelf with comparable features and performance to an AMD based version cost $100.00 - $150.00 more. The third world wants the same capabilities we take for granted today with our home PCs. That $661,000 AMD just got from a Middle East investment firm kind of points in the direction of affordability and value over raw performance being the driving force in the market right now. I think it is well established (1000 times over) that the Intel QX and upper end Es are top dog on the desktops. When AMD reaches the 3.0 Ghz range late next year with the Quads for less money than they charge for the current models maybe Intel will get the message.